This volume is a systematic study of the rules of proof in English Courts of Equity between the later sixteenth and the early eighteenth century. In this period the proof practices of the Courts of Equity were controversial, as contemporary lawyers saw them as linked to the Civil Law, and some perceived a threat to the Common Law tradition. The reality of this linkage and threat has continued to be controversial among historians. In addition, this period saw the early stages of the development of the Common Law of Evidence, which in modern law is a striking divergence from Civil Law systems. The origins of the law of evidence have traditionally been linked to the need for judges to control the jury, but this view has been subject to several recent critiques. The Courts of Equity did not generally use jury trial. This study considers Equity proof rules in their relationships to contemporary Civil and Canon Law proof conceptions, medieval Common Law rules governing proof of facts, and early Common Law evidence rules. It concludes that Equity courts operated a variant of civilian proof concepts, and mediated an influence of these concepts on the origins of the Common Law of Evidence. These findings cast a new light on the debates on these origins, and on the relationship between the Common Law and Civil Law traditions in early modern England.

This volume is a systematic study of the rules of proof in English Courts of Equity between the later sixteenth and the early eighteenth century. In this period the proof practices of the Courts of Equity were controversial, as contemporary lawyers saw them as linked to the Civil Law, and some perceived a threat to the Common Law tradition. The reality of this linkage and threat has continued to be controversial among historians. In addition, this period saw the early stages of the development of the Common Law of Evidence, which in modern law is a striking divergence from Civil Law systems. The origins of the law of evidence have traditionally been linked to the need for judges to control the jury, but this view has been subject to several recent critiques. The Courts of Equity did not generally use jury trial. This study considers Equity proof rules in their relationships to contemporary Civil and Canon Law proof conceptions, medieval Common Law rules governing proof of facts, and early Common Law evidence rules. It concludes that Equity courts operated a variant of civilian proof concepts, and mediated an influence of these concepts on the origins of the Common Law of Evidence. These findings cast a new light on the debates on these origins, and on the relationship between the Common Law and Civil Law traditions in early modern England.

European co-operation has resulted in many new and challenging opportunities for legal scholars who, since the so-called 'codification period', have become used to operating in a purely national context. This applies also to scholars in the field of civil procedure, who, for a considerable period of time, have resisted leaving the purely national domain. These scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to the question whether or not harmonisation of civil procedural law is a feasible option, and, if so, in what manner harmonisation should be achieved. The contributors to this book seek to further the harmonisation debate by exploring some of the main trends in the development of civil procedural law during the last two centuries in several European countries (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, England and Wales, The Netherlands and Belgium). Two of the central issues that are addressed by the contributors are the extent to which the various procedural models have influenced each other and the extent to which common traditions in civil procedural law may be distinguished in Europe. Each general chapter in this book is supplemented by three chapters devoted to specific procedural topics: Conciliation, Party Interrogation as Evidence and the Role of the Judge. In addition, extensive bibliographical references are included.

Explores the impact of legal ideas and legal consciousness on early modern English society and culture.

Analyses how bankruptcy was litigated within the court to gain a more nuanced understanding of early modern bankruptcy. This book examines cases involving bankruptcy brought before the court of Chancery - a court of equity which dealt with civil disputes - between 1674 and 1750. It uncovers the numerous meanings attached to financial failure in early modern England. In its simplest sense, personal financial failure occurred when an individual defaulted on their debts. Because they had not fulfilled their responsibilities and behaved in a trustworthy and credible manner, bankrupt individuals were seen to be immoral. And yet bankruptcy was linked to wider notions of credibility, trustworthiness, and morality. Financial failure was described and debated not just in economic terms, but came to rely on a combination of social, community, and religious values. Bankruptcy cases involved an interconnected network of indebtedness, often including relatives, neighbours, and traders from the local community. As such, conceptions of failure implicated individuals beyond just the bankrupt. As people began to look back and appraise the actions and words of those involved in trade, a far wider network of creditors, debtors, and middlemen were blamed for the knock-on effect of an individual failure. Ultimately, the book investigates the negative aspects of early modern trade networks and the active role of the court when such networks broke down, providing unique access to contemporary understandings of what was considered right and wrong, honourable and deceitful, and criminal and compassionate within the moral landscape of debt recovery during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

A study of law and early modern English literature.

Fully revised and updated, this classic text provides the authoritative introduction to the history of the English common law. The book traces the development of the principal features of English legal institutions and doctrines from Anglo-Saxon times to the present and, combined with Baker and Milsom's Sources of Legal History, offers invaluable insights into the development of the common law of persons, obligations, and property, and also of criminal and public law. It is an essential reference point for all lawyers, historians and students seeking to understand the evolution of English law over a millennium. The book provides an introduction to the main characteristics, institutions, and doctrines of English law over the longer term - particularly the evolution of the common law before the extensive statutory changes and regulatory regimes of the last two centuries. It explores how legal change was brought about in the common law and how judges and lawyers managed to square evolution with respect for inherited wisdom.

Quite by accident, Roman law and English law share a peculiar dual structure. In both systems, the law (ius civile, Common law) was supported, amended and corrected by a second legal source (ius honorarium, Equity) found in the jurisdiction of particular magistrates. How did this dual structure come into being in Rome and England, and how did it influence legal developments? In Law & Equity: Approaches in Roman law and Common law, seven specialists explore the origins and consequences of this interaction. The history of equity and law is treated by Willem Zwalve, Paul Brand, David Ibbetson and Mike Macnair, while John Cartwright, Hendrik Verhagen, Frits Brandsma and Willem Zwalve offer a comparative legal history on issues of substantive law.

This introductory text explores the historical origins of the main legal institutions that came to characterize the Anglo-American legal tradition, and to distinguish it from European legal systems. The book contains both text and extracts from historical sources and literature. The book is published in color, and contains over 250 illustrations, many in color, including medieval illuminated manuscripts, paintings, books and manuscripts, caricatures, and photographs.